Chad Lawhorn

Editor & Publisher

Have your own take? Send 250 words or less to letters@ljworld.com.

Have a column idea or a tip for Chad to investigate?
Send a message to clawhorn@ljworld.com.

There was reason to believe that California voters would approve the measure. It was projected to potentially generate $100 billion to be used for healthcare, education and food assistance programs. That’s generally appealing. More so, though, it seems to fit with America’s tax policy, which I sum up this way: The most popular tax is the one that someone else pays.

While it doesn’t say so in the dictionary, the practical definition of a billionaire is: Someone else.

That seemed to be the beauty of this proposal: 99.999% of us were never going to be at any risk of having to pay this tax. Plus, it seemed to fit in perfectly with a dominant narrative of this election. As Democrat James Talarico frequently said as he won a U.S Senate seat in Texas, “the biggest divide in America is not left vs right. It is top vs bottom.”

The folks on the bottom had a chance to club the jerks at the top by simply checking a box on a ballot. Yet, the measure lost. Some will say the billionaires bought the result with all their campaign spending against the proposal. I’m not sure I’m buying that. We have a Senator-elect Talarico after all, who had the world’s richest person financing a campaign against him. One of the great takeaways from this election is that the checkmark on the ballot is the only thing that matters. The rest is just noise, if you choose to make it so.

Perhaps California voters just decided a “wealth tax” was a bad idea. I think Kansans have pretty much come to that conclusion about our wealth tax.

What, you say? No, you didn’t miss a ballot initiative in Kansas to start taxing billionaires. Kansas has long had a wealth tax, and our tax believes in equal opportunity. It doesn’t just focus on billionaires. It is the property tax, which is the most pervasive tax in all of Kansas. It funds everything from K-12 education to local cemetery districts.

Many, many Kansans have grown to hate it. Interestingly, I often think they don’t understand why they hate it. Here’s my theory on why. When government takes money out of my paycheck for income taxes, I at least have new money in my bank account to spend. When government makes me pay sales tax on my new car, I at least have a new car to drive.

But when government makes me pay property taxes on my same old house that government has now determined is worth 10% more than it was a year ago, what new thing am I getting out of the deal? Yes, I still have a house to live in, and I do agree that house requires some government services I should pay for. But how does the fact that my house is worth 10% more than it was a year ago mean that government automatically must get 10% more as well? Did the cost to clear the street of snow go up because the value of my home increased?

No, the theory behind the property tax is I’m wealthier due to my home, so I should provide more for our government to function. I’m not sure I disagree with the sentiment that the wealthier should pay more. The problem is I sure don’t feel wealthier simply because the government says my house is worth more than it was a year ago. Sure, if I’m going to sell my home right then and there, I may indeed be wealthier. If you want me to pay a tax at that point, I’m probably OK with that.

But government wants me to pay a tax right now on some value that has done nothing to improve my bank account? Somehow I’m wealthier but my bank account has less money in it as a result?

Maybe I do feel sorry for the rich after all.

No, I don’t. I feel sorry that Kansas politicians can’t figure out how to come together to modify a tax system that clearly has a flaw in it, and clearly is causing many people to hate government, which is a problem on many levels.

We don’t even have to abandon the property tax system to fix this. One straightforward solution is to put a cap on how much the taxable value of a home can increase in any year. Another would be to figure the tax due based on square footage instead of some estimated monetary value of the home. That seems more logical. Does a $500,000 home really require a lot more government services than a $400,000 home. Are my wood floors and granite countertops putting a strain on government?

The number of people living in a house probably is the main factor in how much service it requires from government. Square footage is a better indicator of that than value. Set your square foot tax rates based on the type of property, one for homes, one for commercial businesses, one for agricultural land, and so on. Add a special tax due when the property sells — much like a capital gains tax on a stock sale — to make sure property ownership doesn’t become some giant tax shelter.

Of course, if you want to get rid of the property tax, consider that too. Maybe cities, counties and other governments would do better collecting a local income tax than a property tax. I’m not sure of that, but I am sure our leaders need to get serious about figuring out a new system. We are in a housing crisis, and part of that crisis is what a flawed property tax system is doing to ordinary people trying to keep a roof over their heads.

The message to politicians should be clear: Fix it — or else we’ll stick it to you.

Show/Post Comments